The exemplar has been used to prove a fairly general idea, thus rendering option (2) wrong. Again no examples in particular have been quoted. The discussion is fairly general. Hence option (1) is also wrong. Option (4) is factually incorrect as the author is mainly concerned with reason for banking crises. Only one phenomenon has been discussed i.e. banking crises. Hence, option (5) is not justified. The author is outlining a general paradigm within which all banking crises fit. Hence, option (3) is the best answer.

There are no terms given in the paragraph, rendering option (2) entirely wrong. The author is not discussing any effect at all. In fact, he is making a comment about Samantha here. So option (1) is again wrong. Option (4) could be faulted on the grounds of being shorn of facts as they are very much there to support the case. The author calls Samantha an atrocious student because of her getting six red marks on her term paper. He is working on the assumption that six red marks are a sign of one's being an atrocious student, which may or may not be justified.

Options (1) and (3) do not find any support in the passage as no reference to the ideas therein has been made. Option (4) is slightly far-fetched as the passage only mentions the government’s pursuit of individuals with more creative solutions to social problems. Hence, it is ruled out. Option (5) goes overboard in saying that they are partnering the government, which is not supported by the passage. Hence, option (2) is the best possible answer.

Note the difference between the language used in option (1) and (4). It is carrying a vastly different meaning in each case. For this reason, option (1) is definitely ruled out. So is true of option (2), which is very extreme in nature. Nowhere does the author give any hint which could justify either option (3) or (5).

Option (1) is a bit far-fetched and extreme while (3) is misplaced because he is citing an apparently wrong cause for the observed effect. The author is talking in fairly general terms. So it is not a one-off instance. Thus, option (4) is wrong. The reasoning is not intended to push for male domination, hence option (5) is also ruled out. The author is basically arguing by linking poor salaries and inferior social status with the fact of one's being male or female. This idea underlies his entire thinking process, thereby justifying answer option (2).

Option (1), in no way, strengthens the social scientists' logic as it only talks of the possible reason why the disadvantaged group need to be given job quotas. Option (2) is absolutely irrelevant as disposable income in their hands is not the focus of discussion. Option (4) is again wrong for it only indicates the organizations' belief about the policy but whether it actually leads to their improvement is still a moot point. Option (5) is quite vague and therefore, is ruled out. The correct answer choice C links the two variables i.e. quotas and socio-economic improvement, and is therefore, the best choice.

Option (1) is irrelevant in that it makes a comparative analysis of different traffic rule violations, which is not the focus here. Option (3) is unclear in not telling us why people violate the red lights on roads. Option (5) holds out a promise for the future, but as of now, nothing is sure. Option (4) is very vague and unconnected to the main issue. Option (2) is the correct choice as it offers another logical explanation i.e. people do not get punished, which drives them to commit the crime.

Linking up the presence of too many shrines and poor productivity, if they are present together somewhere, could be tempting, but in the absence of any proof, it is purely unscientific. Besides, had it been there in some countries also, it would have become more trustworthy. Both these problems underlie the conclusion drawn by the author. Hence, the correct option should be (5).

Option (1) tends to support the logic given in the passage by making a positive link between the demand for houses and interest rates. Thus, it is ruled out. Option (2) talks of an opinion expressed by some people, but the words believe and some render it doubtful. Options (3) and (5) are irrelevant as they talk of the homeowners' motive and availability of houses, both of which are irrelevant to this discussion. Price-inelastic demand in a certain sector means that the demand will not change as a result of change in prices. It ultimately means that even if mortgage loan rates are reduced, it will do nothing to stimulate the demand for more houses. Hence, option (4) is the right answer.

The second line holds the key to the correct answer. The President expects the students not to protest the fee hike on the basis of this experience with the earlier hikes which had not evoked any student protest at all. Now whether this was due to their indifference or the lack of a student union or their feeling about its being a justified step, is entirely a moot question and cannot be justified on the basis of the information given. If we connect the two lines given to us, the second line represents a premise, which should embolden the President to think of a further hike. If this line is put to a yes-no test, the premise collapses, which proves the inherent truth of this premise. The rest of the option may or may not be true and hence cannot be classified as valid answers. Therefore, the correct answer in this case should be an option containing the answer 4, which happens to be option (2) here.

Why else would the reader join the camp? Can we imagine any advertisement prodding people o become poor or drive inferior cars or go to lesser clubs by attending a particular course? Therefore, it stands to reason that the sponsors believe in all these things. Hence, option (1) is the correct answer.

There is nothing given about the average income of a Chinese vs. an American. Thus, option (1) is not a suitable closing line. Option (2) goes against the logic presented because what matters is what you can buy with a dollar, not its number. Hence, option (2) is also wrong. It is difficult to comment on the truth of option (5) because the author has not written anything about how much a dollar is really worth in terms of comparison. Option (3), the correct option, is very much in line with the overall logic of the question and summarises the entire point nicely.

In the context of facts and figures, opinions hardly matter. Therefore, option (1), which talks of the health experts’ opinion, is ruled out. Pay careful attention to the word flawed in option (2), which could go either way to the advantage or disadvantage of the true position in respect of Goa. Besides, it is an allegation, not a proven fact. Option (4) is again wrong as we are talking of the viability of moving to Punjab to improve one’s health. The fact of 40% Goans having a health index of 1000+ points, does not negate the conclusion given to us, which basically focuses on Punjab. So it is irrelevant. (5), in fact, tends to give us one of the logical reasons for the Punjabis’ better health, while on the other hand, we would like to prove that moving to Punjab will do no good to one’s health. The job is done very well by option (3), which reveals that genes are responsible for better health in Punjab. Consequently, if someone lacks those genes, going there would be hardly useful at all.

Overall, the paragraph does not, at any point, address the issue of growth rate in case of home loans. Thus, Option (1) does not have any basis. Option (3) is again incorrect because even if it remains the sole guarantor, it does not impact the number of homes unable to repay their loans. This fact does not have any bearing on the issue at all. Option (4) is nothing but a corollary of the contents given in the paragraph. The assumption given in option (5) is utterly unjustified on the basis the information given in this case. Option (2) remains the best possible assumption underlying the conclusion as it presupposes that the households will have the same disposable income as before. Now, if we challenge this idea, there could be a real change in the ability of homeowners to service their loans. Thus, the Federal Insurance Corp’s conclusion certainly takes a beating because it remains the basis of all their calculations.

The conclusion, stated in the very last line, indicates that despite having the same benefits, the high-priced item attracts more consumer interest than the low-priced one. (1), therefore, is irrelevant as it talks of the benefits of a particular item, which is not the focus of the conclusion. Option (2), on the other hand looks very attractive but for mall owners and many, two words which greatly narrow down the scope of its applicability to a general consumer and retail population. Option (4) suffers from the same problem i.e. prospective home-owners. Out of options (3) and (5), the former is better as the latter is again qualifying the word consumers with some, making it logically unquantifiable.